(January 16, 2015 at 2:51 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It appears as though the whole program may have been designed to revitalize contract opportunities the Shuttle could not, after having lost it's luster due to being long in the tooth and, of course, the disastrous flights we all remember. The SLS is, at present, less than a reskinned shuttle. In a few years it will actually -be- a reskinned shuttle. In a decade or more, it will be a reskinned Saturn V - if they ever get around to figuring out how to do that again.....but more than anything, during this entire time, it will be a PR vehicle for pork. This isn;t the narrative we hear, is it. We'd be forgiven if we thought that this system had already been realized..because they just "shook the bugs out" with a real flight..... riiiiight? Wrong. PR.
The DoD has had a long history of letting out semi-useless contracts in order to keep a contractor afloat until the golden goose can come in. Thus, you see the B-70 getting dollars shifted to keep Convair/General Dynamics afloat, which worked out in the end because they gave us the F-16. I think we're seeing a similar phenomenon with the F-22 and F-35, both known to be turkeys, but both will keep Lockheed-Martin alive.
I don't doubt that the same strategy may well be in play here, tossing contracts for unremarkable designs to contractors in order to keep them alive until a new surge of enthusiasm can carry the day for space exploration.
Until then, I'm in agreement with both you and Kevin that ROI is pretty low on the list of accomplishments I want from the space program. I want technological advances that may not be immediately monetized, but will be in the medium- and long-term not only valuable, but crucial.
More than Tang, no doubt.
